By Elsie Kamsiyochi
Elon Musk returned to the witness stand in a California federal courtroom on Thursday, facing a sharp and often tense cross-examination from lawyers representing OpenAI in a high-stakes trial that could reshape the future of one of the world’s most influential artificial intelligence companies.
The case centers on Musk’s claim that OpenAI abandoned the founding principles he says convinced him to invest millions of dollars into the organization. According to Musk, OpenAI was originally created as a nonprofit dedicated to developing artificial intelligence safely and for the benefit of humanity. He argues that the company later shifted toward a profit-driven model that enriched senior executives while moving away from its original mission.
OpenAI strongly rejects those accusations. The company argues that Musk’s lawsuit is less about protecting AI safety and more about his own frustration after leaving the organization years ago. Lawyers for OpenAI say Musk is attempting to regain influence over a company that has become a dominant force in artificial intelligence, while also promoting his own competing AI venture.
During Thursday’s courtroom session, OpenAI attorney William Savitt questioned Musk about internal emails and documents from 2017 that discussed plans to create a for-profit structure under the supervision of the nonprofit board. Savitt pressed Musk on whether he had reviewed those materials at the time.
Musk responded that he had not studied the details closely.
“My testimony is that I did not read the fine print — only the headline,” Musk told the court.
The remark became one of the most talked-about moments of the day, highlighting the central issue in the case: whether Musk fully understood OpenAI’s evolving business plans when he was still involved in the organization.
At several points, the exchange between Musk and OpenAI’s legal team became visibly strained. Musk appeared irritated by the questioning and accused the lawyer of repeatedly interrupting his answers.
“Few answers are going to be complete, especially when you cut me off all the time,” Musk said from the stand.
The lawsuit has drawn widespread attention because of what is at stake. Musk is seeking $150 billion in damages, with the money potentially directed toward OpenAI’s charitable arm. He is also asking the court to force OpenAI back into a nonprofit structure and remove key leaders, including CEO Sam Altman and President Greg Brockman, from positions of control.
Musk has repeatedly argued that converting a nonprofit into a profit-making company crosses an ethical line.
“There is nothing wrong with having a for-profit company,” Musk said in court.
“You just cannot take a charity and turn it into something else.”
OpenAI maintains that the shift to a hybrid model was necessary because developing advanced AI systems requires enormous computing power, world-class researchers, and billions in outside investment. The company says remaining purely nonprofit would have made it impossible to compete in the rapidly accelerating AI race.
The courtroom battle has also exposed the personal rivalry between Musk and OpenAI leadership. Lawyers for OpenAI argue that Musk once supported the idea of a profit-generating structure and that his objections only grew after OpenAI became a global leader with the success of ChatGPT.
The judge in the case has made clear that the trial will focus on corporate governance and legal obligations, not broader fears about artificial intelligence. At one point, when Musk’s legal team attempted to introduce testimony about AI posing an existential threat to humanity, the court pushed back, saying the case was not a referendum on the dangers of AI itself.
As the trial continues over the coming weeks, more prominent witnesses are expected to testify, including senior OpenAI executives and AI safety experts. The outcome could have major consequences not only for Musk and OpenAI, but for how artificial intelligence companies are governed in the years ahead.
Source Reuters